is equal to

can somebody explain to me how this is true?

Printable View

- January 31st 2008, 03:21 PMakhayoonintegration on inverse trig

is equal to

can somebody explain to me how this is true? - January 31st 2008, 03:50 PMPlato
- January 31st 2008, 03:55 PMakhayoon
well thats the thing I haven't been taught these

it's just given to me as a formula...but I would like to understand how it happened so that way I dont have to memorize it...

thanks - January 31st 2008, 04:02 PMPlato
- January 31st 2008, 04:07 PMakhayoon
well..I really don't care you how you find that notion...all I really want is a hint on how to begin solving that problem really, which is what I always get when I have a question on this forum.

- January 31st 2008, 04:46 PMtopsquark
- January 31st 2008, 07:20 PMJhevon
the responses given seem to me to be geared towards verifying that the claim is true, rather than saying why it's true, or how it works. i believe what the poster was after is actually integrating arctan to get the result shown. in that case, we use integration by parts with and (you do know what i am referring to when i say , right akhayoon?)

- January 31st 2008, 07:24 PMKrizalid
A similar integration by parts reasoning is useful here: take the following function Contemplate its derivative and integrate, the rest follows.